Learn More About Measure ES and State Ballot Measures!
Your 2026 ballot will ask you to vote on a local Santa Monica parcel tax, Measure ES, as well as a number of state-level propositions. The following is a guide provided by the Santa Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs (SMMPTA) regarding Measure ES, and by the California State PTA (CAPTA) regarding the state-level ballot measures.
Measure ES
The Santa Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs supports Measure ES, a new parcel tax designed to permanently stabilize key funding to our SMMUSD schools.
Since 2002, the City of Santa Monica has paid District schools $12 million annually, through the Master Facilities Use Agreement (MFUA), a partnership between the City and the District to allow school property to remain open after school and on weekends for use by the general community. SMMUSD has come to rely on this funding for teacher salaries, school property maintenance, and other uses.
Despite years of advocacy by District parents to the Santa Monica City Council to keep the annual $12 million MFUA intact, the City is planning to eliminate the funding behind the MFUA to balance the City’s budget.
Measure ES proposes the establishment of an annual $495 parcel tax assessed to landowners to replace the annual $12 million that the District will lose when the City begins its budget realignment process in 2027. Losing $12 million annually equates to the loss of one teacher per grade, per school, across our district.
The SMMPTA has a searchable FAQ for parents to dive deep into learning more about this important ballot measure. The SMMPTA also published a study of Measure ES in May 2026 to analyze the measure and establish support for ES.
For more information about Measure ES, visit yesones.org.
California State Ballot Measures
The California State PTA (CAPTA) has provided school families the following guide to voting for 2026’s California state ballot measures. For links to the measures and for more background information, please visit https://capta.org/advocacy/state-ballot-measures/.
YES: Proposition 1 — “Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute.”
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 1 authorizes $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds: $10 billion for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, and preservation, and $1.25 billion in self-supporting revenue bonds for the CalVet Home Loan Program. More than half of the housing funding goes to the Multifamily Housing Program, with set-asides for veterans, farmworkers, foster youth, students, and tribes.
Why We Took This Position: Housing stability is directly tied to children’s ability to attend school consistently and thrive once they get there, and the measure’s dedicated set-asides for foster youth and student housing reflect PTA’s long-standing commitment to the state’s most vulnerable children and families.
YES: Proposition 2 — “Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.”
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 2 raises the Budget Stabilization Account (rainy day fund) deposit cap from 10% to 20% of general fund revenue, exempts those deposits from the state spending limit (the Gann Limit), and extends the state’s required extra debt payments through 2040.
Why We Took This Position: A larger, more resilient rainy day fund gives the state greater capacity to protect school funding when the economy and stock market turn down, consistent with PTA’s legislative platform commitment to fiscal responsibility in government and to safeguarding public schools’ constitutional first claim on general fund revenue.
YES: Proposition 3 — “Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” (extends Prop 55)
California State PTA is a named supporter of Proposition 3 in the official ballot argument, mailed to all registered voters in the state.
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 3 provides permanent funding for schools and healthcare by extending existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates for high-income Californians, currently set to expire in 2031. Since the tax was first enacted, California has moved from near the bottom nationally in state funding to about average, yet districts still struggle with chronic absenteeism, the high cost of special education and health benefits, and the state’s cost of living.
Why We Took This Position: Making this funding source permanent, rather than allowing it to lapse, reflects the ongoing needs of California’s schools; the loss of an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion in annual revenue would be devastating to students and educators.
NO POSITION TAKEN: Proposition 4 — “California Fair Elections Act” (SB 42)
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 4 would repeal California’s constitutional ban on public financing of election campaigns, in place since voters approved Proposition 73 in 1988. The measure does not create a public campaign finance program itself; it gives the Legislature and local governments the option to establish one under rules the measure sets.
Why We Took This Position: Neither California State PTA nor National PTA has an authority addressing campaign finance structure, so the Board of Managers voted not to take a position on Proposition 4.
NO: Proposition 39 — “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless they Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 39 requires voters to present government-issued identification when voting in person, or the last four digits of a government-issued ID number when voting by mail, and requires officials to annually report the percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship has been verified. California already verifies voters’ identity and citizenship at registration, so this additional requirement is an unnecessary burden that would disproportionately risk disenfranchising voters who lack current documentation, including married women whose names no longer match their birth certificates, and the majority of California voters who vote by mail.
Why We Took This Position: The provisions in this measure conflict directly with California State PTA’s position that the right to vote must be protected for all citizens, particularly communities of color, language minorities, people with disabilities, people with low income, and other groups most vulnerable to disenfranchisement.
YES: Proposition 40 — “Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 40 imposes a one-time tax of up to 5% on the assets of California residents and trusts with covered assets over $1 billion, roughly 200 Californians, paid over up to five years. Ninety percent of the revenue is dedicated to health care for low-income Californians, and 10% to education and food assistance, with existing funding protected from replacement. Revenues are exempt from the constitutional school-funding guarantee, budget-reserve, and state spending-limit requirements, so the money represents genuinely new resources rather than a shift within the existing budget.
Why We Took This Position: This measure provides significant new funding for health care, food assistance, and education-related programs that directly benefit children and families, at a time when many of these safety-net programs are under fiscal pressure.
NO: Proposition 41 — “Prohibits New State Taxes that Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 41 requires a pre-election audit of any program that would receive funding from a voter-initiative special tax, recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026, and prohibits new state taxes enacted after that date from being excluded from the existing voter-approved state spending limit. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 41 shares the ballot with, and is written to compete against, Proposition 40: if Proposition 41 receives more yes votes than Proposition 40, courts could find the two measures in conflict and block Proposition 40 from taking effect even if a majority of voters approve it.
Written to defeat Prop. 40, this applies a spending cap on new special taxes, limiting the state’s ability to address high cost budget needs, such as the health care crisis.
NO: Proposition 42 — “Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 42 prohibits any new state tax on the ownership or control of personal property, including retirement accounts, financial assets, investment accounts, business interests, and intellectual property, or that applies retroactively, with limited exceptions, for taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026. As with Proposition 41, this measure is written to compete directly with Proposition 40: if Proposition 42 receives more yes votes, courts could find it conflicts with and blocks Proposition 40 from taking effect.
Why We Took This Position: Broad, permanent restriction on future state revenue could constrain funding available for schools and other children’s and youth services for years to come, on top of its risk to the health care and education funding at stake in Proposition 40.
NO: Proposition 43 — “Limit Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.”
What This Measure Proposes: Proposition 43 raises the threshold for citizen-initiated local special taxes from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote, beginning January 1, 2027.
Why We Took This Position: It makes it significantly harder for local communities to fund the school-adjacent services they choose to support, including libraries, public safety, child care, and recreation programs, by overriding the majority-vote standard the California Supreme Court confirmed applies to citizen-initiated local special taxes.
